Residents share concern over parcel tax
Original post made
on Feb 5, 2009
As the state continues to negotiate its budget, the Pleasanton Unified School District school board is listening to residents' concerns over the program cuts and a possible parcel tax.
Read the full story here Web Link
posted Thursday, February 5, 2009, 7:44 AM
Like this comment
Posted by 38 Year resident
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Feb 6, 2009 at 3:54 pm
In response to your post, who were you referring to when you said "Public Entities are Hogs" - Public entities are made up primarily of public servants.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 22, 2009 at 10:22 am
And I'm sure without having to look it up that Palo Alto and Piedmont are also facing cuts, despite having a parcel tax. Livermore certainly is. What do you think are these districts are going to do? Propose an increase in their parcel tax to make up the difference? $500 parcel tax!
PUSD has to make deep cuts before considering proposing a parcel tax. Public entities are hogs that love feeding from the public trough.
Some more condescending post -- but just a sample:
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 22, 2009 at 9:27 am
Doom, gloom, and greed.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 25, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Do you enjoy repeating propaganda?
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 25, 2009 at 7:11 pm
"This annual fee would not have to be paid by those who rent apartments or homes"
Laura Foster is being disingenuous. While true that property taxes are not paid _directly_ by those who rent, many owners pass on such costs to their renters in rent increases.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 26, 2009 at 9:48 am
"I do believe that with the schools going down hill"
Are they going downhill? How can you tell? How fast are they going to do downhill? Give the kids in school some credit. They're not going to suddenly become dumb in one year.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 9, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Mac, far from it. I was wondering if PUSD seriously has PE teachers for K-5, if it isn't a joke. It sounds ridiculous if true. (Note: My children have not entered this age group yet.) I went to Fairlands and don't recall having a separate teacher for PE. We did like Long Time said, played basketball, tag, four square, dodge ball, etc. Based upon personal experience, I can't see the need for one. I'd be interested in understanding what the district's justification is for this. Show me the studies...
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 10, 2009 at 8:35 am
What is shameful appears to be the lack of critical thinking on this issue. Several posters here seem to be working on the assumption that throwing money at a problem is the way to solve it. I invite them to send their next paycheck to our State legislature.
PE teachers prevent obesity? PE teachers do not purchase all the Nintendo DSes or iPods or junk food for the kids. It is shameful that parents think somehow teachers are going to fill in the holes the parents dug.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 10, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Looks like this discussion is devolving. It is unfortunate that this budget issue has to get conflated with perceived personal characteristics of staff.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 12, 2009 at 11:54 am
It would be interesting to have the data detailing the number of school districts across the country with PE teachers for elementary school vs. those which don't and the obesity rates in children in those districts. LOL!
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 12, 2009 at 12:55 pm
"I won't back off my claim on home values"
"Which Measures of School Quality Does the Housing Market Value?" Web Link
"The results suggest that the housing market values proficiency test passage rates but not value added by a school district. Therefore, it may be that parents do not choose schooling based on which school districts are best able to improve students' academic achievement; instead, they appear to choose school systems based on peer group effects"
Note that housing values are based upon a public's perception (or misconception) of what constitutes a "quality school", namely test scores, rather than in the quality of teaching as measured by how the students improve (the value-added measurement). Also found this Web Link "If you look at raw data (I have WA State at hand -- the supposedly "43rd" ranked state in the nation when it comes to funding), you'll see that there is precious little difference, if any, between academic achievement in districts that allocate more money to education than those that can allocate less." I wish I knew what this person was looking at.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 14, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 16, 2009 at 5:11 pm
BTW, proper cost benefit analysis DOES place a monetary value upon all those items that we think can't have one assigned. In order to include the cost of rising obesity rates, it would first have to be shown that PE in elementary school plays a role in that. Does it?
(by the way this is clearly wrong)